| Author |
 Topic  |
|
SlowShot
PickupHockey Pro
Canada
264 Posts |
 Posted - 05/21/2007 : 11:08:39
|
|
Do you think gretzky would be the point leader if he played in the modern NHL?
|
|
|
willus3
Moderator
Canada
1948 Posts |
Posted - 05/21/2007 : 11:36:08
|
Yes.
"You are not your desktop wallpaper" |
 |
|
|
leafsfan_101
PickupHockey Veteran
Canada
1530 Posts |
Posted - 05/21/2007 : 13:09:16
|
Ya I do. Look at his stats. I know someone will bring up ESGA. Whoever does please explain it to me. I asked in another topic but I don't remember which one now .
When life gives you lemons throw them at the Ottawa Senators and their fans and hope it gets them in the eyes ;) |
|
|
|
willus3
Moderator
Canada
1948 Posts |
Posted - 05/21/2007 : 14:32:52
|
quote:
Originally posted by leafsfan_101
Ya I do. Look at his stats. I know someone will bring up ESGA. Whoever does please explain it to me. I asked in another topic but I don't remember which one now.
When life gives you lemons throw them at the Ottawa Senators and their fans and hope it gets them in the eyes ;)
Briefly here's how it works. They keep track of who is on the ice for every goal scored. If you're on the ice and are scored against you get credited with an Even Strength Goal Against. When it's the opposite of that you get credited an Even Strength Goal For.
Plus / minus comes from this stat tracking.
"You are not your desktop wallpaper" |
|
|
|
semin-rules
PickupHockey Veteran
Canada
1915 Posts |
Posted - 05/21/2007 : 19:39:59
|
Honestly, I don't think he would be as good now then as he was a while ago.
1st. There is a alot more players that are as good or even better than him that would hit him, deke him out, and just beat him.
2nd. Goaltending is a lot better than it was back then. The pads are bigger (I think) and the goalies are much more skilled so it would be harder for Gretzky just to shoot at the net, and score.
3rd. The game is a lot more phsyical then it used to be. I think Gretzky would be overwhelmed with the Roughness of the game.
Since I never got to see Gretzky play, this is my opinion and based on what I know, I think Gretzky would not do as awell now as he did back then
~~~Let's Go Senators!!!!~~~ |
|
|
|
willus3
Moderator
Canada
1948 Posts |
Posted - 05/21/2007 : 20:53:16
|
quote:
Originally posted by semin-rules
Honestly, I don't think he would be as good now then as he was a while ago.
1st. There is a alot more players that are as good or even better than him that would hit him, deke him out, and just beat him.
2nd. Goaltending is a lot better than it was back then. The pads are bigger (I think) and the goalies are much more skilled so it would be harder for Gretzky just to shoot at the net, and score.
3rd. The game is a lot more phsyical then it used to be. I think Gretzky would be overwhelmed with the Roughness of the game.
Since I never got to see Gretzky play, this is my opinion and based on what I know, I think Gretzky would not do as awell now as he did back then
~~~Let's Go Senators!!!!~~~
Semin, a couple things.
Gretzky only retired 8 years ago. He played with the larger equipment and better goalies. He played during the dead puck era. At 36, 37 years old in that dead puck era he managed 1.14 ppg. I don't see any reason why in his prime he wouldn't be able to lead the league. Crosby lead the league this year with 1.46 and that is in the post lockout wide open new NHL.
No i don't see any reason he wouldn't lead the league today.
"You are not your desktop wallpaper" |
Edited by - willus3 on 05/21/2007 20:54:12 |
|
|
|
semin-rules
PickupHockey Veteran
Canada
1915 Posts |
Posted - 05/22/2007 : 05:44:17
|
Yeah thats true Willus, but I never really got to see him play so I was just basing it on what I no. But thanks for the info.
~~~Let's Go Senators!!!!~~~ |
|
|
|
Beans15
Moderator
Canada
8286 Posts |
Posted - 05/22/2007 : 08:37:33
|
I agree with Willus that Gretzky would have been top of the league offensively today. I think 200+ points would be a stretch as the game is not as wide open as it was in the 80's. 150-170 points in a season would not be unreasonable.
And for those who did not see Gretzky play much or play in his prime, he was that good offensively. No contest with anyone in the league today. Crosby/Thorton are about the closest, but still not near Gretzky.
I Love your Kids, IHC is the man, and The Oilers Rule. Does that make me insane?? |
|
|
|
BigShow
Rookie
177 Posts |
Posted - 05/22/2007 : 10:17:06
|
In his prime he would have a healthy lead over anyone playing today.
Like Willus said, he played through the rougher years of the mid90s and still had over a point a game.
I don't think goaltending is generally any better now than it was then. Hasek strung togethor several amazing seasons, Roy was great til the end, Brodeur was always solid, Belfour had many good seasons. I would argue that goaltending had a larger elite crowd then than it does now (Brodeur + Luongo). Pads are smaller now, and there aren't XXXXXXL jerseys allowed anymore.
I don't think the game is any rougher nw than it was then, in fact the opposite. There seems to be far fewer tooth rattling hits now, and Gretzky was notoriously hard to hit anyway. |
|
|
|
Guest2288
( )
|
Posted - 06/14/2007 : 13:17:16
|
| I think the new NHL would suit Greztkys game, there isnt as much hitting and the players arnt any better then the were back then. |
|
|
|
Canucks Man
PickupHockey Veteran
Canada
1547 Posts |
Posted - 06/14/2007 : 13:17:44
|
quote:
Originally posted by Guest2288
I think the new NHL would suit Greztkys game, there isnt as much hitting and the players arnt any better then the were back then.
Thats me
CANUCKS RULE!!!
|
|
|
|
fly4apuckguy
PickupHockey Pro
Canada
834 Posts |
Posted - 11/14/2007 : 19:59:52
|
Right now with the teammates he had with the Oilers, he'd still get 200 points.
Take Crosby off the Penguins and insert Gretzky, and you have a 120 - 130 point man, just like Sid is now. |
|
|
|
Guest9836
( )
|
Posted - 11/15/2007 : 04:14:09
|
You guys are crazy to think that if Gretzky played today he wouldn't be as good!!! He would still be the best ever. Smartest hockey player ever. He would adapt to the game and start to rule it.
Someone who played against him was quoted "he was hard to hit because he never stood still. I couldn't catch him" It's hard to hit what you can't see.
He may not get 200+ points but he would lead the league in scoring and win the Hart trophy again and again. |
|
|
|
Guest8370
( )
|
Posted - 11/15/2007 : 04:31:06
|
Not if Mario played and was healthy.
Wayne wouldn't have the protection he did (look at how much Crosby is hit).
Look at the tapes....he could skate in with no one around him whenever he wanted.
|
|
|
|
Guest9926
( )
|
Posted - 11/15/2007 : 06:06:14
|
I really am beginning to hate these Gretzky topics....as I'm sure Beans and Willus are too (but they might not admit it). For those of you who believe that there are better players than Wayne Gretzky in the NHL today and for those of you who believe that Sidney Crosby is his equal I strongly urge you to stop doing drugs. No please, stop doing them because they are clearly clouding your mind.
Wayne Gretzky, according to almost every expert on the game in the world and according to anyone who ever played the game with him is the greatest player of all time. Personally, I've always thought Orr was the greatest, but guess what......it doesn't matter what I think. Did I watch Orr play live? NO. Did I play with Bobby Orr? NO. Did I watch Gretzky play live did I play in the league with him? NO. No I didn't and anyone reading this post didn't. The fact of the matter is that everyone who did watch him live and play with him or play against him agree on one thing.....he's the greatest. It's hard to argue with that.
Wayne certainly would have lead the league today. You can open the game up as much as you want offensively and a guy like Jacques Lemaire will always find ways of shutting it back down. Gretzky is the same way. Whatever the rules would be he would find a way to dominate this game.
|
|
|
|
willus3
Moderator
Canada
1948 Posts |
Posted - 11/15/2007 : 06:16:57
|
quote:
Originally posted by Guest9926
I really am beginning to hate these Gretzky topics....as I'm sure Beans and Willus are too (but they might not admit it). For those of you who believe that there are better players than Wayne Gretzky in the NHL today and for those of you who believe that Sidney Crosby is his equal I strongly urge you to stop doing drugs. No please, stop doing them because they are clearly clouding your mind.
Wayne Gretzky, according to almost every expert on the game in the world and according to anyone who ever played the game with him is the greatest player of all time. Personally, I've always thought Orr was the greatest, but guess what......it doesn't matter what I think. Did I watch Orr play live? NO. Did I play with Bobby Orr? NO. Did I watch Gretzky play live did I play in the league with him? NO. No I didn't and anyone reading this post didn't. The fact of the matter is that everyone who did watch him live and play with him or play against him agree on one thing.....he's the greatest. It's hard to argue with that.
Wayne certainly would have lead the league today. You can open the game up as much as you want offensively and a guy like Jacques Lemaire will always find ways of shutting it back down. Gretzky is the same way. Whatever the rules would be he would find a way to dominate this game.
I agree with some of the things you say. However your middle paragraph is all wrong.
I mean, why doesn't it matter what you think?
"I'm a man of principle... or not. Whatever the situation calls for." - Alan Shore |
Edited by - willus3 on 11/15/2007 08:31:54 |
|
|
|
andyhack
PickupHockey Pro
Japan
891 Posts |
Posted - 11/15/2007 : 07:46:48
|
I guess I am taking drugs.
I didn't know that though.
MUST BE THE DRUGS!
Edit - actually, I misread your post (again, must be the drugs) - I thought your drug comment was about Gretzky being the greatest. Am I on drugs if I think he was not the greatest?
I do agree that we have to wait a bit with Sid. |
Edited by - andyhack on 11/15/2007 07:49:42 |
|
|
|
PuckNuts
PickupHockey Veteran
Canada
2414 Posts |
Posted - 11/15/2007 : 09:45:38
|
A response to a question Beans had in his trivia about who had the second most points in the 80's.
Here are the top players that played in the 80's.
Gretzky
1980-81 to the end of the 1989-90 season total points = 1842
Stastny
1980-81 to the end of the 1989-90 season total points = 1059
Kurri
1980-81 to the end of the 1989-90 season total points = 1043
Savard
1980-81 to the end of the 1989-90 season total points = 1013
Messier
1980-81 to the end of the 1989-90 season total points = 937
Federko
1980-81 to the end of the 1989-90 season total points = 877
Lemieux
1984-85 to the end of the 1989-90 season total points = 838 *
Trottier
1980-81 to the end of the 1989-90 season total points = 825
* Lemieux average points in the 80's was 140 / season.
So if you add 140 x 4 (the four he never played) add them to 838 he could of had 1398 points in the 80's.
I think Gretzky would dominate now, as he did in the 80's, 200 may be a streatch but 170 would be possible...
I don't necessarily agree with everything I say.
- - Marshall McLuhan
|
Edited by - PuckNuts on 11/15/2007 09:52:21 |
|
|
|
Guest4912
( )
|
Posted - 11/15/2007 : 09:58:09
|
| yes he would but he would not get four 200 point years. his best would probably be 160-170, still remarkable. goalies in his day were mediocre but he is undoubtedly the greatest player to ever lace up skates in any hockey league. |
|
|
|
Guest8372
( )
|
Posted - 11/15/2007 : 10:13:21
|
quote:
Originally posted by SlowShot
Do you think gretzky would be the point leader if he played in the modern NHL?
Yes. He saw and did things not NHLers couldn't. Take for example Greg Smith, who posted in another forum that Gretz deked him (Greg) out by making him slip and fall by putting the puck under Greg's skates.
That's crazy! You don't have to be able to be fast (skating), strong or big to play the NHL if you can imagine and execute those kind of moves.
I'd say 180 points per regular season in a good year and 150 on a bad year. Tack on another 20-40 points in the playoffs depending how far his team goes. |
|
|
|
LeafsFan4Life
Top Prospect
Canada
65 Posts |
Posted - 11/15/2007 : 11:55:24
|
Guess it would depend who he had with him on the ice. But on the other hand gretzky could setup anyone to get a goal...so yeah i think he would still get tonnes of points if he played modern day hockey...
Long Live Hockey |
|
|
|
andyhack
PickupHockey Pro
Japan
891 Posts |
Posted - 11/15/2007 : 12:00:30
|
Yes to the question in this thread. he was an offensive MACHINE then and he would be now, though his point total would be lower I believe. I agree - 150 to 180 probably.
As for greatest player ever ... hold it, I have to light up - ahhhhh, I'll take that guy who played for the Bruins in the '70s. Psychedellic hair on that guy. |
|
|
|
willus3
Moderator
Canada
1948 Posts |
Posted - 11/15/2007 : 12:17:35
|
quote:
Originally posted by andyhack
Yes to the question in this thread. he was an offensive MACHINE then and he would be now, though his point total would be lower I believe. I agree - 150 to 180 probably.
As for greatest player ever ... hold it, I have to light up - ahhhhh, I'll take that guy who played for the Bruins in the '70s. Psychedellic hair on that guy.
Yeahhh man, Sanderson was awwwwesome. 
"I'm a man of principle... or not. Whatever the situation calls for." - Alan Shore |
|
|
|
fly4apuckguy
PickupHockey Pro
Canada
834 Posts |
Posted - 11/15/2007 : 14:36:31
|
quote:
Originally posted by Guest9926
I really am beginning to hate these Gretzky topics....as I'm sure Beans and Willus are too (but they might not admit it). For those of you who believe that there are better players than Wayne Gretzky in the NHL today and for those of you who believe that Sidney Crosby is his equal I strongly urge you to stop doing drugs. No please, stop doing them because they are clearly clouding your mind.
Wayne Gretzky, according to almost every expert on the game in the world and according to anyone who ever played the game with him is the greatest player of all time. Personally, I've always thought Orr was the greatest, but guess what......it doesn't matter what I think. Did I watch Orr play live? NO. Did I play with Bobby Orr? NO. Did I watch Gretzky play live did I play in the league with him? NO. No I didn't and anyone reading this post didn't. The fact of the matter is that everyone who did watch him live and play with him or play against him agree on one thing.....he's the greatest. It's hard to argue with that.
Wayne certainly would have lead the league today. You can open the game up as much as you want offensively and a guy like Jacques Lemaire will always find ways of shutting it back down. Gretzky is the same way. Whatever the rules would be he would find a way to dominate this game.
I have never touched drugs in my life, but I do enjoy a few beers now and then.
You would be hard-pressed to find a bigger Gretzky fan than me. I believe in my heart he is the greatest player ever (as of now), and I have three goals in my life: one is to have kids, which I've done...two is to know more about the game than Liam Maguire, whom I regard as THE expert of hockey history - period...and the other is to meet Wayne Gretzky, which I have not done yet, but will someday.
However, I am a student of the game. Anyone who knows my posts will (perhaps with some remorse) agree that I don't throw ideas out there based on a whim or a lack of information. What I say comes from a very analytical point of view. Sounds arrogant? I don't care. I am arrogant when it comes to hockey.
I said Wayne would score close to what Crosby gets if he was in Crosby's situation right now. Truth be told, I think 1982 Wayne Gretzky is not as good a hockey player as 2007 Sidney Crosby. Does that mean I hate Wayne Gretzky? Don't be ridiculous.
But to simple say Wayne is a more gifted hockey player because of his point totals is absurd. Wayne played for a more talented team in a VERY different era. If you are going to do this comparison thing, look at the men, not the numbers. What makes up a hockey player? Speed, power, stickhandling ability, strength/toughness, desire, anticipation, intelligence, drives the net, shot, passing, conditioning, heart, creativity, sportsmanship, competativeness, and defensive ability.
Speed - Crosby
Power - Crosby
Stickhandling ability - Crosby
Strength/toughness - Crosby
Desire - Tie
Anticipation - Gretzky
Intelligence - Gretzky
Drives the net - Crosby
Shot - Gretzky
Passing - Gretzky
Conditioning - Crosby
Heart - Tie...maybe the edge to Gretz, but I'm planning ahead...
Creativity - Crosby
Sportsmanship - Gretzky (although people forget he was the biggest complainer to the refs for his first ten years in the league - ask any old ref like Bruce Hood)
Competativeness - Tie
Defense - Tie...Crosby is better as a 20 year old, but older Gretz was better than Sid is now.
I may have missed a factor, but as you can see, I've thought this out. It's ridiculously close, and not as black and white as some non-drug induced people think.
Look, they are both amazing players. But don't take my word for it, take Wayne Gretzky's:
"If there is someone out there that may break my records someday, it's Sidney Crosby."
I guess Gretzky is on drugs. |
Edited by - fly4apuckguy on 11/15/2007 15:13:05 |
|
|
|
willus3
Moderator
Canada
1948 Posts |
Posted - 11/15/2007 : 15:15:30
|
quote:
Originally posted by fly4apuckguy
quote:
Originally posted by Guest9926
I
But to simple say Wayne is a more gifted hockey player because of his point totals is absurd. Wayne played for a more talented team in a VERY different era. If you are going to do this comparison thing, look at the men, not the numbers. What makes up a hockey player? Speed, power, stickhandling ability, strength/toughness, desire, anticipation, intelligence, drives the net, shot, passing, conditioning, heart, creativity, sportsmanship, competativeness, and defensive ability.
Not that I want to stir up this pot again but...
If these are the things that make up a hockey player i can't understand how you think Gretzky is the greatest player all time. At all. 
"I'm a man of principle... or not. Whatever the situation calls for." - Alan Shore |
|
|
|
andyhack
PickupHockey Pro
Japan
891 Posts |
Posted - 11/15/2007 : 15:22:34
|
Wayne has never been at any of my drug parties! I don't think he has anyway!
Cop guys reading this - I AM JOKING!
Flyguy, on this point topic though, don't you think that since Sid has the edge in the strength/toughness department, and since Wayne used the energy that Sid puts towards that end of the game to even further concentrate on all the offensive skills you listed, that Wayne would outscore Sid now? I think that, even with the same type of teammates as Sid has now, Gretzky of 1982 might get about twenty, or maybe even thirty, more points than Sid.
But I think that question can be answered yes, and that one can still think that Sid is the better hockey player overall.
Edit - Sorry Flyguy - just read your first post on this thread. That's your answer to my question I guess. Curious what the reasons are though. And I have NO doubt that they are coming! |
Edited by - andyhack on 11/15/2007 16:32:18 |
|
|
|
Scudworth
Top Prospect
Canada
23 Posts |
Posted - 11/15/2007 : 17:23:38
|
I still think it's a wee bit early to tell with the whole Crosby/Gretzky comparison. Maybe when Crosby gets 90 goals in a season I'll start comparing a bit more.
The one thing I've noticed on Gretzky's ability as compared to anyone else, is the fact that he made it look like he was a man playing with boys when he had that puck. I've never seen anyone like him before, and I think regardless of the era he'd played in, he would have done just as well. |
|
|
|
andyhack
PickupHockey Pro
Japan
891 Posts |
Posted - 11/15/2007 : 17:43:26
|
quote:
Originally posted by Scudworth
Maybe when Crosby gets 90 goals in a season I'll start comparing a bit more.
This is really the opposite of the point we are making I think. Sid doesn't have to get anywhere near 90 goals for us to be doing a comparison. Actually, I personally don't think he has to get near 60.
Same goes for coming near Gretzky's amazing point totals.
What I am waiting for, however, is a few years of performance to reflect on, so I can make a better judgment on the overall "who is greater" comparison question, particularly some more playoff performances.
Ask me about the comparison in 2014, when I get out of the Betty Ford clinic, or maybe the BIG HOUSE in Kingston the way this thread is going for me |
|
|
|
fly4apuckguy
PickupHockey Pro
Canada
834 Posts |
Posted - 11/15/2007 : 17:46:24
|
A couple things...
No I don't think Gretzky would wildly outscore Crosby now.
Put it this way, I'm watching the Pens game tonight (in between periods), and Errey just said that Crosby could legitimately have had 12 shots on net in the first period alone because of his speed and ability to find the holes.
In 1982, he might have.
I'm not here to slam 1982 hockey, because personally, I found it far more entertaining than today's over-eqipped, over-systemmed, over-coached era. I have nothing but love for 1982 hockey.
But....
Watch a game of 1982 hockey. Gretzky was Crosby then, and everyone else is a bunch of AHL hockey players (or worse). Many can't skate very well, the goalies let in shots from the top of the circles routinely, the defence fall when skating backward. Some of the fourth liners look wobbly on their skates. WOBBLY!!
You can argue that this was due to poorer equipment, less training, bad coaching....whatever.
The point is, we shouldn't even be arguing Gretzky/Crosby, we should probably be arguing Mike Fisher/Mel Bridgman.
Fisher is twice the player Bridgman was, and he's considered just a good player in the NHL today, not a superstar. Bridgman was a good player in his day.
Gretzky got to face a bunch of Mel Bridgmans every night. Crosby faces Mike Fishers every night.
No doubt, your top flight players (Orr, Mario, Gretz) were terrific - superstars. But they stood out more. Does anyone out there think the the super-duper-star is no longer a fact in NHL hockey? They are, it's just that their competition has risen closer to their level.
Think Canada - Czechlosovakia. Canada once beat them 49-0 in international play.
Now we ocassionally get beaten by the Czechs. Do you think Canada has gotten that much worse, or that the Czechs have gotten better over the years?
Same thing with NHL players.
|
|
|
|
fly4apuckguy
PickupHockey Pro
Canada
834 Posts |
Posted - 11/15/2007 : 18:20:55
|
An observation from tonight's game to emphasize why I am impressed with Crosby, like I was with Gretzky...
The Pens are playing okay, but without much life. No jump, as they say. Crosby is dancing all over the ice, not getting a lot of help. It's frustarting to watch.
Crosby steals the puck from the defenseman, does a quick spin, dishes a Gretzky-like pass onto the stick of Georges Laraque. Laraque scores into the basically open net - his first goal in 40 games.
The happiest guy on the ice? Georges Laraque. An extremely close second - Sidney Crosby. He looked like he had just assited a goal to win a game in the Stanley Cup finals. He cares about his teammates. I don't care what the highlight watchers say about him. I actually watch the games, so I know what I say is true. He's not a whiner. He's a captain. he's a leader. He's a future Stanley Cup champion.
On a side note...
Paul Coffey did colour commentary with Bob Errey during the second period - it was great. He had this to say about Sidney:
"More than anything else, he respects the game. He respects the guys who played before him, and the guys who he plays against now. That's a sign of a true superstar."
This is exactly what they said about Gretzky in the 80's. |
Edited by - fly4apuckguy on 11/15/2007 18:21:43 |
|
|
|
andyhack
PickupHockey Pro
Japan
891 Posts |
Posted - 11/15/2007 : 18:24:18
|
I don't really disagree with your reasoning Flyguy, just the calculation at the end.
Under my calculation (tested and approved by the guys Tony Montana was doing business with in Columbia), the better opposition/ different game thing brings Gretzky down from 200 or so points to the 130 to 140 range. But then Wayne gets bumped up to the 150 to 160 range from there due to the point about him ALWAYS thinking, AND SEEING, the goals and assists aspect of offense and not exerting energies elsewhere as Sid does in the physical game/toughness department.
I agree that 180 points for Gretzky now may not be giving enough weight to your "different era" point though. I know, I said up to 180 in the earlier post - BUT I was really high at the time !
|
|
|
|
fly4apuckguy
PickupHockey Pro
Canada
834 Posts |
Posted - 11/15/2007 : 18:24:53
|
quote:
Originally posted by Scudworth
I still think it's a wee bit early to tell with the whole Crosby/Gretzky comparison. Maybe when Crosby gets 90 goals in a season I'll start comparing a bit more.
The one thing I've noticed on Gretzky's ability as compared to anyone else, is the fact that he made it look like he was a man playing with boys when he had that puck. I've never seen anyone like him before, and I think regardless of the era he'd played in, he would have done just as well.
With all due respect for the Great One (and I have a truckload), when the game changed in the mid to late 90's, he was not a man playing with boys. He was a very skilled man playing with other men. His highest point total after 1994 was 97. That's quite human. |
|
|
|
fly4apuckguy
PickupHockey Pro
Canada
834 Posts |
Posted - 11/15/2007 : 18:27:27
|
quote:
Originally posted by andyhack
I don't really disagree with your reasoning Flyguy, just the calculation at the end.
Under my calculation (tested and approved by the guys Tony Montana was doing business with in Columbia), the better opposition/ different game thing brings Gretzky down from 200 or so points to the 130 to 140 range. But then Wayne gets bumped up to the 150 to 160 range from there due to the point about him ALWAYS thinking, AND SEEING, the goals and assists aspect of offense and not exerting energies elsewhere as Sid does in the physical game/toughness department.
I agree that 180 points for Gretzky now may not be giving enough weight to your "different era" point though. I know, I said up to 180 in the earlier post - BUT I was really high at the time!
Of course, being on drugs myself, I am prone to exaggerate. It's hard to say. 140 is probably not an outrageous estimate.
Put it this way, how many points would Sid have gotten in Edmonton in 1984? Now that would be interesting. |
|
|
|
Guest7007
( )
|
Posted - 11/15/2007 : 20:40:27
|
quote:
Originally posted by fly4apuckguy
With all due respect for the Great One (and I have a truckload), when the game changed in the mid to late 90's, he was not a man playing with boys. He was a very skilled man playing with other men. His highest point total after 1994 was 97. That's quite human.
Actually his highest point total was 102 in 95-96 playing for both LA and St-Louis. You are right very human for a 25 year old, but Gretz was 35. Of course some guy name Mario at 31 had 161.
What happened next year Gretz failed to break the 100 point barrier that year with 97 points (as a 36yr old in the dead puck era) and how many points did the other players ahead of him get? Mario with an insane 122, followed by the only other player to break the 100 mark, Teemu at 109. That's it.
In 97-98, at 37 he had 90 tied for 3rd, one point behind Foppa and 12 behind Jagr. Who was the only player to break 100 points. Not bad. Of course Mario only had 76 points (in 43 games!!!!).
So yeah between 95-98 he was human. If that's what you call being consistently being in th e top 5 scoring (exception of 95-96 where he was top 15 scoring). I wonder what the guys that were younger and less productive than Gretz would be? Sub human?
|
|
|
|
fly4apuckguy
PickupHockey Pro
Canada
834 Posts |
Posted - 11/15/2007 : 21:14:46
|
quote:
Originally posted by Guest7007
quote:
Originally posted by fly4apuckguy
With all due respect for the Great One (and I have a truckload), when the game changed in the mid to late 90's, he was not a man playing with boys. He was a very skilled man playing with other men. His highest point total after 1994 was 97. That's quite human.
Actually his highest point total was 102 in 95-96 playing for both LA and St-Louis. You are right very human for a 25 year old, but Gretz was 35. Of course some guy name Mario at 31 had 161.
What happened next year Gretz failed to break the 100 point barrier that year with 97 points (as a 36yr old in the dead puck era) and how many points did the other players ahead of him get? Mario with an insane 122, followed by the only other player to break the 100 mark, Teemu at 109. That's it.
In 97-98, at 37 he had 90 tied for 3rd, one point behind Foppa and 12 behind Jagr. Who was the only player to break 100 points. Not bad. Of course Mario only had 76 points (in 43 games!!!!).
So yeah between 95-98 he was human. If that's what you call being consistently being in th e top 5 scoring (exception of 95-96 where he was top 15 scoring). I wonder what the guys that were younger and less productive than Gretz would be? Sub human?
I apologize for my 5 point error. That changes everything. No wait, it makes no difference.
I don't recall mentioning anything about Forsberg, Mario, Jagr, or anyone else. I was talking Gretzky/Crosby.
If you knew me, you'd realize how ridiculous it is to try and explain TO ME the abilities of Mr. Wayne Gretzky. I AM GRETZKY. That is to say, I always have been Gretzky's staunchest supporter. Go ahead, check my other 700 posts. In there somewhere you'll probably find 50 of them pertaining to him being the greatest player that ever lived. So stop giving me his resume! I forgot more about Gretzky since I started this post than most people have ever learned. PLEASE STOP!! You are preaching to the choir!!
What I am trying (however unsuccessfully) to get across is the fact that to totally disregard Wayne's competition (or lack thereof) is a HUGE error. Huge.
Ahh, forget it. If you didn't get my Canada 49 - Czechoslovakia 0 analogy, you'll never get it. I give up.
|
|
|
|
Guest9977
( )
|
Posted - 11/15/2007 : 22:51:07
|
Okay, I'm glad all you guys liked my "drugs" comment. If it accomplished nothing else it certainly made for interesting reading. LOL. Anyways, for the recrod Wayne would have been dominant in today's NHL. Just a couple of things here guys:
1. The idea that Wayne Gretzky was great in his era due to a general lack of league-wide competition. What??? This doesn't make any sense at all. One could easily make that same argument about any of the great players of the past. And yes, the day will come when the same argument can be made about Sid The Kid. The problem with this kind of thinking is that it fails to account for said players being the product of the game in their respective era. Maurice Richard excelled at the game during his era. From the time he was a boy he learned the same things, played on the same teams, had the same opportunities as everyone else around him, but he was simply better. The same is true of Gretzky, Lemieux, and yes, Crosby. Any attempt at all to "cut and paste" players from one era to another is not logical. We can only compare the level of dominance that these players displayed over other players in their respective eras. Anything else is nonsense.
2. The comparison between Crosby and Gretzky is definitely premature. Sid is only in his third year in the NHL. Yes, he is an amazing player--there is no doubt about that, but to make an honest comparison at this point is absurd. One thing that I'm a little leery of with #87 is that he plays the game incredibly hard. That's a good thing right? Yeah, it's awesome to watch. Bobby Orr and Mike Bossy both played hard too. They didn't play long though. Perhaps we will just have to wait to see what happens to Mr. Crosby's numbers when he can no longer rely on strength and speed. 97 points at 35 years old may not be that bad after all.
|
|
|
|
Guest8023
( )
|
Posted - 11/16/2007 : 06:16:02
|
All i have to say is this: Look who he played with in his first season and HE STILL GOT 137 POINTS!!!!!! Blair MacDonald scored 46 goals playing with Gretzky......Gretzky tied for the lead in points and won the MVP as well. End of discussion
1979-80 Regular Season Statistics
Name GP G A PTS PIM PPG GPG
Wayne Gretzky 79 51 86 137 21 1.73 1.55
Blair MacDonald 80 46 48 94 6 1.18 1.74
Stan Weir 79 33 33 66 40 0.84 2.39
Brett Callighen 59 23 35 58 72 0.98 2.57
Dave Lumley 80 20 38 58 138 0.73 4
Dave Hunter 80 12 31 43 103 0.54 6.67
Doug Hicks 78 9 31 40 52 0.51 8.67
Ron Chipperfield 67 18 19 37 24 0.55 3.72
Risto Siltanen 64 6 29 35 26 0.55 10.67
Mark Messier 75 12 21 33 120 0.44 6.25
Pat Price 75 11 21 32 134 0.43 6.82
Kevin Lowe 64 2 19 21 70 0.33 32
Cam Connor 38 7 13 20 136 0.53 5.43
Don Ashby 18 10 9 19 0 1.06 1.8
Al Hamilton 31 4 15 19
|
|
|
|
andyhack
PickupHockey Pro
Japan
891 Posts |
Posted - 11/16/2007 : 07:00:42
|
The great thing about being high all the time is that when someone says "End of discussion", you just light up another doobie and keep discussing things.
Two points:
1. Guest 9977 - I don't think anyone is saying that Wayne was great solely due to his era. We're just looking at all the factors as we talk about these amazing players. You say, "don't cut and paste" players from era to era. I agree doing so has analytical limitations, but it creates for interesting discussion, and I would argue that if you take the position that you can't "cut and paste" in these type of discussions, you have to also take the position that you can't say anyone is the GREATEST PLAYER OF ALL TIME. You just have to say Gretzky was the best player of his era I guess (as you are probably painfully aware of, I actually disagree with that but, you know, that's the drugs talking again I guess).
2. Guest 8023 - Blair MacDonald - I agree Gretzky had a HUGE effect on him putting up big numbers in '79-80, but am I on a major "trip" right now or do I see that he actually was NOT the worst player that ever lived on the planet before he teamed up with Wayne.
Take a look:
http://www.hockeydb.com/ihdb/stats/pdisplay.php3?pid=3262
A couple of 34 goal seasons - almost a goal a game in juniors.
This is becoming a bit of a theme of mine I guess (see previous comments about Bernie Nichols), but I think this "Gretzky MADE the careers" of guys thing is a bit overstated.
|
|
|
|
willus3
Moderator
Canada
1948 Posts |
Posted - 11/16/2007 : 07:54:45
|
quote:
Originally posted by andyhack
2. Guest 8023 - Blair MacDonald - I agree Gretzky had a HUGE effect on him putting up big numbers in '79-80, but am I on a major "trip" right now or do I see that he actually was NOT the worst player that ever lived on the planet before he teamed up with Wayne.
Take a look:
http://www.hockeydb.com/ihdb/stats/pdisplay.php3?pid=3262
A couple of 34 goal seasons - almost a goal a game in juniors.
This is becoming a bit of a theme of mine I guess (see previous comments about Bernie Nichols), but I think this "Gretzky MADE the careers" of guys thing is a bit overstated.
Excellent! Now I don't have to type this exact argument. Thanks Andyhack.
I also like your point about not being able to declare a greatest of all time if eras can't be compared. Great point.
Guest 9977 - I believe different eras can be compared. You can do a 'six degrees of separation' type of thing.
Example: Bourque played for 20+ years. In both the 80's and 90's. Two very different eras.
He proved he could play in both eras though.
Bourque played comparably with Brad Park on Boston in the 80's. Brad Park played in the 70's and 80's. Again two different eras. Park could play in both eras, though he was winding down in the 80's.
Park played with and against Orr in the 70's. As we all know Orr dominated during his time in the NHL. Park was great but Orr was much better.
So if Park was able to play and adapt through the 70's and 80's and Bourque was able to adapt 80's to 90's does the overlap not show that good players can play in any era and be good in both?
Ya dig?
"I'm a man of principle... or not. Whatever the situation calls for." - Alan Shore |
|
|
|
PuckNuts
PickupHockey Veteran
Canada
2414 Posts |
Posted - 11/16/2007 : 08:07:29
|
Not a bad way to rate the two players, I added a few more...
1.) Speed - Gretzky, he was deceptive.
2.) Power - Crosby, no contest there.
3.) Agility - Crosby
4.) Stickhandling ability - Gretzky, Crosby, not even close.
5.) Strength/toughness - Crosby
6.) Desire - Gretzky
7.) Anticipation - Gretzky
8.) Intelligence - Gretzky
9.) Drives the net - Crosby
10.) Shot - Gretzky
11.) Passing - Gretzky
12.) Conditioning - Tie, you don't think those long shifts by Gretzky were luck do you.
13.) Heart - Gretzky
14.) Creativity - Gretzky, not even close (Crosby one knee to score wooooooooo)
15.) Sportsmanship - Tie, we will see how long it takes Crosby to catch on.
16.) Competativeness - Gretzky
17.) Defense - Crosby
18.) Finding open ice - Gretzky
19.) Leadership - Gretzky
20.) Blocking shots- Crosby
Totals
Gretzky 12
Crosby 6
ties 2
I don't necessarily agree with everything I say.
- - Marshall McLuhan
|
|
|
|
Guest2918
( )
|
Posted - 11/16/2007 : 12:14:03
|
| ALWAYS WANTED MY OPINION ON A GREATEST PLAYER OF ALL TIME. CROSBY GREAT NOW, GRETZKY GREATEST OF ALL TIME. I THINK ALL THE COMMENTS HAVE VALID POINTS. BUT COME ON HOW MANY PEOPLE PLAYING WITH CROSBY TODAY ARE GOING TO THE HOCKEY HALL OF FAME JUST BECAUSE THEY ARE PLAYING WITH CROSBY. DOES HIS SKILL AND LEADERSHIP TRANSLATE INTO HIS TEAM BEING THE MOST OFFENSIVE JUGGERNAUT IN HIS ERA. CAN CROSBY DEFINE AN ERA OF HOCKEY. ONE GOOD HIT AND ITS OVER WAS THE COMMENT PEOPLE SAID ABOUT GRETZKY. FOR 17 YEARS HE RANKED IN THE TOP 15 AT LEAST. THATS WITH DOUBLE TEAMS AND SLASHES AND TEAMS RUNNING HIM LATER IN HIS CAREER. SID WILL SEE HIM IN 14 YEARS. |
|
|
|
Topic |
|
